3 ms·
Sorry, I guess where I was going was when someone defines something as a right, they should be able to explain how they arrived at that conclusion. For instanc
by squozzer 10y ago
Sorry, I guess where I was going was when someone defines something as a right, they should be able to explain how they arrived at that conclusion.
For instance, if you believe that we have a right to live, and healthcare has some relation to life, then haelthcare might arguably be a right.
Another might be an analogy, such as with law enforcement. Some might say we have a right to a life free from crime. Most jurisdictions prefer to run and staff their own police departments, or contract with another government-run police department. Only as a last resort would privately-run police departments be acceptable. Additionally, police officers, given their mission and tools, have the power of life and death over the citizens they serve. This is a typical reason given for government-run law enforcement.
Healthcare, to a certain degree, also has the power of life and death. Therefore, one could argue governments should run healthcare.
- Eridrus 10y agoI think a rights based reasoning framework is problematic in general, it leads people to focus too much on what is considered their "right" and ignores both the harms associated with having that right and the reasoning on which that right was based. You can fall into the trap of assuming your "right to private property" means that taxation is theft or you can start with a "right to privacy" and decide law enforcement should never be able to access the contents of your smart phone, rather than discussing the reasons for private property or privacy. And in case case, rights tend to never be justified, just asserted and treated like true axioms.